British tennis is paying the price of generations of neglect

Neither Tim Henman nor Greg Rusedski is the answer to the problems facing British tennis. The failings cannot be solved by a cosmetic reshuffle at the top, just as they could not be masked 15 years ago by the latter's defection from Canada.

National emergency: Britain's Davis Cup captain John Lloyd tries to rally his troops, Ken Skupski and Colin Fleming, but he couldn't stop Lithuania triumphing in the tie overallPhoto: GETTY IMAGES

There is no coaching crisis. Great Britain lost in Lithuania as a result of a structural flaw that runs through the game. The inquiry into this latest embarrassment, promised by the Lawn Tennis Association chief executive, Roger Draper, is a recurring lament, a howl at the moon.

Draper can and does convene any number of expert panels aimed at unearthing the next Fred Perry, of restoring tennis to the high table of British sport. And every new initiative ends up in the same sporting landfill.

We are a tennis nation for two weeks a year. For the remainder the game retreats behind the closed doors of that elite institution the tennis club, which depends on subscriptions to thrive. Youngsters form no part of that equation. Britain has no chance of developing a productive tennis culture unless the game is played by children at an early age.

Britain is paying the price of generations of neglect. What we saw in Lithuania can be directly traced to the widespread erasure of public courts across the country. The game became an elite thrash at David Lloyd Tennis Centres and the like, plush accoutrements to yuppie culture in the Eighties.

Britain's leading exponent, Andy Murray, is a product of a family tennis academy, not a national system. So poorly was he served by the domestic tennis structure he was forced to relocate to Barcelona to keep pace with the progress of the best youngsters in Europe. Talent is not enough. Desire is the component that dragged Murray towards the Mediterranean. There, his competitive instincts were fostered chasing Rafael Nadal around the court.

When Murray falls fractions short in grand-slam finals his limitations are absurdly picked apart. The truth is the system failed him. Imagine how much better he might be had he been competitively stretched earlier by a competent Briton.

His predecessor as whipping boy, Henman, had to import a rival, Rusedski, from Montreal. By then it was too late.

The business of broadening the base of the tennis triangle is theoretically under way with the injection of £26.8 million by Sport England last year. The four-year investment programme turned on a tap that pours £6.7 million into the sport annually until 2012.

For its money the Government expects the number of participants to grow to two million by the end of the scheme. Wimbledon generates pre-tax profits of approximately £25 million, which is also fed into the LTA to nourish the game.

Throwing money at the problem is a necessary start. The tricky bit is to maintain interest once you have placed a mini tennis racket in junior's hand.

Children need court time and an infrastructure into which the most talented are fed. Even if the LTA's initiative to spread the game is successful, there might be a 10-year wait before the conveyor belt yields a supply of male tour champions.

For now we must give thanks to the youthful excellence of Heather Watson and Laura Robson, Britain's junior grand slam winners whose progress towards senior status provides some temporary camouflage. Nothing is guaranteed as they attempt to convert adolescent dominance into greater plunder.

Expectation is already out of step with capability. What they need is more like them on either side of the gender net to share the burden. The result in Lithuania puts that pipe dream into brutal perspective.